Re: The case for moving raw binaries

[Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1555 bytes --]

Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op vr 29-04-2022 om 06:13 [+0200]:
> The extra wrapping isn't cancelled though?  You just append the
> definition of $Y to the the already existing definitions, but you don't
> move the wrapper to $RAWBIN_DIR, because the actual binary already
> exists there.

As I understood it, the suggestion was to cancel wrapping if there's
already things in $RAWBIN_DIR.

> In other words, you have after wrap:
> - bin/foo ~> rawbin/foo
> and after wrap-again
> - bin/foo ~> rawbin/foo
> where ~> is the wrapping relation.
> 
> Currently, you have after one wrap
> - bin/foo ~> bin/.foo-real
> after two
> - bin/foo ~> bin/.foo-real
> - bin/.foo-real ~> bin/..foo-real-real
> after three
> - bin/foo ~> bin/.foo-real
> - bin/.foo-real ~> bin/..foo-real-real
> - bin/..foo-real-real ~> bin/...foo-real-real-real
> and so on.
> 
> Is this clearer now?

I thought that

  (if already-wrapped?
      ;; PROG is already a wrapper: add the new "export VAR=VALUE"
      ;; lines just before the last line.
      [...])

in 'wrap-program' would avoid creating ..foo-real-real?

Also, doesn't 'wrap-program' refuse to wrap .foo-real:

  (when (wrapped-program? prog)
    (error (string-append prog " is a wrapper. Refusing to wrap.")))

so ..foo-real-real shouldn't be created in the first place?
Do you have a concrete example in which ..foo-real-real happens?

That said, the proposed new behaviour seems reasonable to me -- "pidof
emacs" would then actually find Emacs.

Greetings,
Maxime.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]